There is a mild to moderate positive association between better-quality screen use and language development in healthy children younger than 12 years of age. The data is mainly based on observational studies, including children without neurologic or somatic conditions. Although it is difficult to demonstrate causality in observational studies, these results indicate that the screen use together with parents and watching educational programmes may reduce the risk of delayed language development in children younger than 12 years of age. However, it remains unclear, whether this is associated with the risk of developmental language disorder.
There is a mild to moderate positive association between better-quality screen use and language development in healthy children younger than 12 years of age. The data is mainly based on observational studies, including children without neurologic or somatic conditions. Although it is difficult to demonstrate causality in observational studies, these results indicate that the screen use together with parents and watching educational programmes may reduce the risk of delayed language development in children younger than 12 years of age. However, it remains unclear, whether this is associated with the risk of developmental language disorder.
| Reference | Study type | Population | Intervention and comparison | Outcomes | Risk of bias «Additional comments for included studies...»2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| «Madigan S, McArthur BA, Anhorn C, ym. Associations...»1 | Meta-analysis based on observational studies | Studies were included, if (1) mean sample age 12.0 years and younger; (2) a measure
of screen use; (3) a measure of language skill (ie, expressive, receptive, or combined);
(4) observational study; and (5) statistical data that could be transformed into an
effect size. Studies with children with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities were excluded, or the study was experimental and without baseline measures prior to experimentation |
Quantity of screen time. Quality of screen time. Onset of screen use (the age children first started screen use). |
Measure of language skill. | Moderate |
| «Mustonen R, Torppa R, Stolt S. Screen Time of Pres...»2 | cross-sectional study | 164 Finnish children, aged 2.5-4.1 years, with normal development and Finnish as the native language | Screen time alone. Screen time with parent. |
General Language Ability measured with FinCDI III and RDSL III. | Moderate |
| Reference | Comments |
|---|---|
| «Madigan S, McArthur BA, Anhorn C, ym. Associations...»1 | Participants totaled 18905 from 42 studies included. Quantity of screen use included duration of screen time, defined as duration of time spent watching television, movies, or DVDs on devices (eg, tablets or televisions), as well as background television, typically reported in hours per day/week. Quality of screen use included co-viewing or how often caregivers joined their children while exposed to screens, as well as extent of exposure to educational programs (eg, Sesame Street). Onset of screen use was defined as the age children first began viewing screens. In all included studies, the method for measuring screen use (ie, duration, co-viewing, and/or educational) was parent report. Most studies in the meta-analysis are prior to the mass movement toward handheld devices. Approximately half of the studies in the meta-analysis did not present adjusted effect sizes. |
| «Mustonen R, Torppa R, Stolt S. Screen Time of Pres...»2 | The mothers completed The Screen Time Questionnaire. Screen time was defined as time
spent watching TV and watching or using mobile devices, computers, laptops, and game
consoles. The receptive part of the Reynell Developmental Language Scales III (RDLS III «Mustonen R, Torppa R, Stolt S. Screen Time of Pres...»2) and the total score of the Finnish version of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories III (FinCDI III Total «Mustonen R, Torppa R, Stolt S. Screen Time of Pres...»2) were used to measure the children's receptive and expressive general language ability. 95% CIs were not reported. |
Results
| Reference | Number of studies and number of patients (I/C) | Follow-up time | Association (r) | Heterogeneity | Other comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| «Madigan S, McArthur BA, Anhorn C, ym. Associations...»1 | 13 studies with 1955 participants. | NA | 0.13 (95% CI 0.02-0.24) | I2 = 66.01. | |
| Level of evidence: low The quality of evidence is downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision. |
|||||
| Reference | Number of studies and number of patients (I/C) | Follow-up time | Association (r) | Heterogeneity | Other comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| «Madigan S, McArthur BA, Anhorn C, ym. Associations...»1 | 12 studies with 6083 participants. | NA | 0.16 (95% CI 0.07-0.24) | I2 = 92.81. | |
| «Mustonen R, Torppa R, Stolt S. Screen Time of Pres...»2 | 164 participants | RDLS III: 0.07 (ns) FINCDI III: 0.19 (p<0.05) | NA | ||
| Level of evidence: low The quality of evidence is downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision. |
|||||